The Great Fraud Of Christian Ethics, Morality And Morals
82Ethics and Morality
For purposes of this hub and discussion, lets divide the concept of morality and ethics into two separate groups, called "hard" and "soft" morals.
Hard morals would be those morals that concern themselves with actions that directly affect other people. Examples of such actions might include theft, violence, slavery and even such things as causing intentional emotional distress in someone else. It can also include actions that cause a positive effect on another person such as respect, gifts and kindness. In either case this definition includes the concept that the action affects a second person.
Soft morals then become actions that primarily affect only the person causing the action. Recognizing that almost any action taken outside of locked doors will have some effect on the surrounding society, these actions are still primarily affecting only the one person. Such morals might come into play when considering such things as homosexuality, how one is dressed (or not), intake of alcohol, inter-racial marriage and fornication between two unmarried persons. Some of these, of course, require two people that are both affected but in those cases both are in agreement - neither one is "damaged" by the other.
Hard morals are usually addressed in law, at least when they have a negative effect. Soft morals may or may not be addressed in that manner but very often are. Whether our morals are a part of our legal system or not, they always come down to good and evil, right and wrong. But who determines what is "good" or what is "wrong"? Very often it is the church, but just how good is the job they are doing of it?
The History of Christian Ethics and Morality
One of, if not the very first, lists of how to behave morally comes to us in the form of the ten commandments. The first three relate to our commitment and behavior towards God, the fourth is a directive on when to perform what actions and the last 6 concern how to treat others in our society. They are a very good beginning of a strong and useful moral code of conduct.
From that beginning, however, Christianity does not have a very good record. Much of history, as reported by the Bible, is of actions we would consider absolutely barbaric and no person performing such actions would be permitted in free society today. Innocent people were murdered - men, women, children and infants - both by people operating under Gods direction and by God Himself (remember killing all the first-born of Egypt?). Women were little more than possessions to be used as the husband saw fit. Slavery was common, and the Bible even gives directions on how to keep slaves (Leviticus 25: 44-46 is just one example). People were stoned to death for the most minor of "offenses" (Numbers 15:32 and Leviticus 24:16).
Even after the coming of Christ abominations continued with murder, rape and pillage of non-believers (through 9 crusades). People were commonly tortured to death to gain confessions of heresy (the inquisition). "Witches" were burned, drowned and pressed to death, very often in little more than a land grab by a neighbor that didn't like them. Slavery, perhaps the very worst of human immorality, continued for another 19 centuries..
Eventually civilization began to emerge, slowly and late, and Christianity had a problem in that the old actions were no longer considered moral or ethical. Interestingly, church doctrine changed as a result - Gods instructions on stoning a neighbor that curses or blasphemes is ignored. His instructions on how to keep slaves may as well never have been written. Murder or torture by the church is not longer tolerated by society and even the churches themselves at least pay lip service to punishing Gods servants when they perform immoral actions on others.
Christianity improved, from a moral standpoint, to something that was virtually unrecognizable from what it was and this brings us to modern Christian ethics and morality.
Modern Christian Ethics and Morality
Hard Morals
"Thou shalt not steal". "Thou shalt not bear false witness". "Thou shalt not murder". These are generally accepted throughout the civilized world, whether Christian or not. Yes, there are some differences (the death penalty in America for instance) in different cultures and even some disagreement on some specifics inside a culture (abortion), but in general there is little contention. Simplistically put, they can be rolled into the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would they do unto you". There are, of course, innumerable shades of gray and there inevitably small disagreements, but the golden rule is almost universally accepted as a good moral standard. In particular, it is referenced by both Matthew (Matthew 7:12) and Luke (Luke 6:31) in the gospels of the New Testament.
Soft Morals
Soft morals are a different story, however, and this is where Christianity fails so badly. Given that a person is adult and sane they are presumed to be capable of taking care of themselves and are able to find soft morals that work for themselves but that isn't what the Christian community presumes at all. Some examples, both important and not so important might be in order.
While there are very good hygienic and health reasons not to let multiple nude people sit on a restaurant chair or bench, the same cannot be said of going nude on the beach or at a swimming pool. Nevertheless, both are against the law nearly everywhere, and those laws come straight from Adam, Eve and misguided Christian morals.
Only a small handful of states allow homosexual marriage and most ban the very act of homosexuality, yet it harms no one at all - the bans both come from a Christian based soft moral issue.
Prohibition came out of the soft morals of Christianity, as did the blue laws preventing commerce on the supposed seventh day (from the fourth commandment). Both have been shot down as people demanded both and the church could not prevent it, To this day however, a great many locations will not allow the sale of alcohol on Sunday for no real reason other than that the church finds alcohol outside the church sinful.
Inter-racial marriages were illegal for a long time, until the church was forced into more modern civilization and those soft morality based laws also lapsed. There are thousands of other such laws based on the soft morality of Christianity that continue even now. Prostitution. Out of wedlock sex. Seat belts and motorcycle helmets for adults considered capable of taking care of themselves (we are our brothers keeper, after all).
The bottom line is that the Christian culture is not only willing and able but quite eager to force their own soft morals on everyone around them. That universally accepted golden rule says, among other things, not to force your lifestyle and rules on others unless you want it done to you. Only if Christians are willing to have "foreign" or "evil" morality rules forced on them personally should they force theirs on someone else. If it is OK for the Christian to force someone to wear a bathing suit on the beach simply because they want it to be so, then it should be OK for that person to then force the Christian to go nude because they want it to be so. There is no right or wrong here (in what is worn), merely in the fact that people are forced to wear anything at all.
That the church (or God) has decreed that nudity is sinful and wrong doesn't carry any weight. Every Christian knows and understands that others do not believe and do not accept all the "rights" and "wrongs" declared by their individual church or sect. Until the Christian will willingly allow someone else to determine soft morality rules and guidelines he/she does not have the right to determine those rules for anyone else and it is immoral in the extreme to do so.
The Christian community maintains that they alone are allowed to make soft moral rules for everyone else in violation of the golden rule. Far too many Christians seem unable to comprehend that the very act of requiring most soft morals of others is immoral and unethical itself.
If you the reader had the ability to determine all soft moral rules what would you implement? Would you also require actions of people that affect only themselves or would you provide none and let people decide for themselves how to live their lives? Are you a fraud or are you ethical? Do you have the integrity to accept the golden rule in its entirety or will you pick and choose which circumstances to apply it to?
For that is the great fraud perpetuated by the Christian community; that they, and they alone, are the moral guardians of society as a whole while with the same statements they exhibit one of the greatest ethical errors of all. That it is right and proper to apply the moral guidelines of the bible, given in the gospels of both Matthew and Luke as noted above, to others while ignoring them as not applicable to themselves. All this while gradually changing their morality and ethics to match that demanded by society in general as it matures and civilizes itself. A fraud indeed.
How would you answer?
Do you find it ethical for society to determine and enforce moral rules for the private life of another? Moral rules that primarily affect only that person?
See results without votingOther Commentary From Wilderness
- Your Social Security Retirement Benefits Are Being Stolen! Here's How.
Your social security retirement benefits will not be nearly what they should be - find out how and why. - 6 weeks ago
- Are We Morally Bankrupt - A Look At Common Ethics
A look at whether America is morally bankrupt yet. A look at various facets and considerations. - 2 months ago
- When The Boomerang Children Come Home; How To Cope
Observations, experiences and tips from someone that has twice had boomerang kids and their families come home to live. - 2 months ago
- True Meaning Of Christmas - Family Traditions, Giving And Children
The True Meaning of Christmas - some of the meanings and traditions from a secular family that loves the magic and wonder of Christmas. - 6 months ago
CommentsLoading...
LOL - I might even agree with THAT one!
Hey Wilderness, an interesting article. I'll agree that Christians and Christianity(the church) should mind their business. However, even with that said, each person does have a role within mainstream society and how it moves forward. It's unfortunate that when you look at much of society(and/or humanity for that fact) not much of it is actually civilized, because of the spreading of misinformation, which has distorted one's ability to know and understand their role.
I am of a different understanding that morals and ethics are two separate things, as you are saying, but ethics and morals are only two things based on one specific ideology- ethics are for business and morals are for the individual. The fact that people find other ways to perceive these two things is ridiculous, in and of, itself.
Actions are either immoral(bad) or moral(good), or amoral(emotional responses). Things that are amoral cannot be judged as immoral or moral, because they are not, due to the fact that they are instinctive/reactionary. I did write a hub on Morals. I also wrote a Hub on individual rights vs moral standards. Both might be a good read. However, with that said- my hub on morals, as an absolute is what describes "God's Will" and the perfect society based actions. But, as my other Hub- Individual Rights vs General Morality explains, the original hub of morals is flawed, simply because rights of the individual cannot be infringed upon by others. It also addresses the lies about "Right to Life", which is part of the misinformation being spread about. Great hub though. You point out many different aspects. Thank you for sharing. :)
I fully agree that all members of society have a role in how society moves forward. The question is what is "forward", however, and denying rights simply because a person doesn't like them or because they find them "sinful" doesn't equate in my mind.
I'm not sure what you mean by emotional responses being amoral. A stalker will produce very strong emotional responses of fear and terror and is definitely not an "amoral" action but (using the artificial definitions in this hub) is strongly immoral in the hard sense.
On the other hand the example here of public nudity might well produce a negative emotional response in someone that simply doesn't want to see it. While technically immoral I would be more inclined, because of the insignificance of such a reaction in the big scheme of things, to classify it as amoral.
Thanks for the comment - I will check out your recommendations.
Hey Wilderness, again, I think there is a communication error between you and I, which isn't the first for you and I. LOL! Amoral is instinctive/emotional. It is a action that occurs based on those reasons. It doesn't come from rational thought. You said that a stalker will produce a very strong emotional response? But, the stalker's action is was causes the emotional response. Otherwise, the response would never come. His/Her actions are either "immoral" or "moral". A stalker who creates fear in another would actually be immoral in action. The reaction, which is instinctive/emotional cannot be judged as "immoral" or "moral", but amoral.
As for nudity in public? That action of those who choose to be nude in public is immoral. Why? Because, the affects and effects it has on public can and IS dangerous. Thus, making it bad. You're welcome btw. :)
You're right - as usual we were on different tracks. An action in response to an emotional cause, such as instinctive reactions, is indeed amoral. I was thinking of the emotions of the respondent, not the person performing the action. Perhaps we need a class in communication! LOL
Public nudity can conceivably have undesirable community health problems and must be controlled in places where that can happen. It might cause undesirable reactions of "lookers" but it would seem that those would disappear as it became common. I cannot see, however, that public nudity at a beach should have negative effects outside of such things as sunburn. It is why I used it as an example; because I couldn't see any real negative effects when available to people on a limited basis where health concerns should not be of concern. I have not researched the question, but have never heard of untoward problems in nudist colonies or on current beaches that allow nudity. Sinful yes, (at least according to Christian morality) but not dangerous. Can you explain further?
Wilderness, nudity cannot ever become commonplace. There are simply too many immature people and the distraction it creates is what is dangerous. Even on beaches, people will pay attention to others and not pay attention to where they are walking. The sexual nature of humans is only controllable to a certain extent. A beautiful lady, nude or not, will always attract onlookers who will be doing things that they shouldn't be doing. :P :)
I understand what you are saying but disagree. Anyone in the clothing design field will tell you the best way to gain attention is to "hide" a forbidden part of the anatomy, but do so in such a way that it is also somewhat exposed. It's what dress designers have been doing for centuries.
When nothing is hidden, interest falls after the initial shock. Think about it - how much real difference is there between a small thong bikini and nothing at all? A couple of ounces of cloth and a couple of feet of wide string?
Again, nudist colonies are a good example. They are not about sex, and while people will look just as much as they will at clothed people, the sexual aspect of nudity becomes no more important than the same thing in clothed people. Indeed, without small adornments to draw attention to strategic areas sexual attraction ends up being less important.
There is also the fact that different parts of the world require that different parts of the body be covered. Bare female chests are not uncommon and complete nudity is still practiced in some places. It does not seem to give rise to additional sex crimes and may well decrease those crimes.
Interesting article, wilderness. I also disagree personally with some of the impositions of morality on society by the church. For example, though I find homosexuality distasteful, I realize that this is only due to my sexual orientation and not the same distaste which one may find for an act of immorality. Therefore, I have distinguished between what may be called my conscience and my own physical or psychological preferences.
It is important to note, however, that the church gets its authority to make such judgments as those you condemn from the very people it governs. Obviously, the church has no moral authority over someone who places no authority in its hands. Legal influence works the same way, I'm afraid. Lawmakers are, after all, elected officials. So far, it seems that the people of the US still place enough of the responsibility for determining the moral values of society in their churches that politicians who run for office under the premise that people are capable on their own strength of character to make moral judgments for themselves will not be elected.
It is a sad fact, and one which may change yet. The important thing now is to try to show those still under sway of church ethics that people ought to be left alone in cases where they do no harm to others. Of course, the paradox is that, in so doing one must be aware that they are attempting to make a "soft" moral judgment on behalf of others as well. Is a person not free to think that homosexuality is immoral? Or public nudity? Or, in fact, even to condemn such actions in their heart?
You see, this is why I don't often discuss matters not quantifiable... Because I am not very good at it.
I appreciate your attempts in trying to make comparisons, but it seems as though you're comparing apples to oranges. You use the example of a nudist colony to get your point across, but a place like that isn't usually open to the public, such as walking down the street nude. I get your point about "clothing designers". But, I think I'll leave it there. But, thank you for the discussion.
@mathsciguy: You are entirely correct in that the people are giving the church the power to regulate their neighbors, whether those neighbors want it or not. History shows us that eventually that power is taken away as more and more people don't agree with a particular law or moral concept and the church changes to match, but in the meantime it is eager to impose unwanted rules on everyone within reach.
The inconsistency as I see it is that the church violates its own moral principles in accepting and using that power when it comes to most "soft" moral values and the laws coming from them. That it does so knowingly and intentionally as it forces those values on everyone is what makes it so fraudulent.
That the church will spin their facts and arguments so badly (gay marriage will destroy the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage for instance) is indicative that they know very well what they are doing.
@cagsil: Thanks for your comments and discussion; it is always a pleasure to debate or discuss an issue with you.
Interesting hub. Coming from the UK, where religion is very much on the decline in terms of influence, it is striking how much christianity involves itself with politics and lawmaking here in the USA. Often the sum total of an argument by certain christians is along the lines of the bible doesn't like it, therefore it's bad, with no deeper or wider discussion seriously contemplated or considered - this seems to be the case with issues like gay rights, for instance, anyway. It can seem a very rigid and simplistic stance to take.
Yes, Christianity is a very strong lobbying force in the USA and are constantly at work to make their ideas of right and wrong have the force of law.
You also hit the nail on the head that the only thing that really matters is how they interpret the bible. Given that they decide the bible calls something a sin it is all over - that sin (such a homosexuality) must be made against the law. That others may disagree is immaterial - God has spoken and everyone must follow along. No discussion needed or wanted.
Interesting hub! I also take issue with "morality" influencing law. The law should look solely at what is or isn't in the best interest of society overall. Soft morality can be so subjective. If we are going to illegalize gay marriage because some people think it is immoral, should we also illegalize meat eating because vegans think it is immoral? Or do we just make things illegal when the majority thinks it's immoral, which would of course bring up the tyranny of the majority problem.
Of course, people who want to impose their personal morals on everyone else usually don't want anyone else imposing personal morals on them. But they fail to see the hypocrisy in that position.
Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head and is why this hub was written; maybe, just maybe, some of those people that fail to see their own hypocrisy will recognize themselves here and think twice before doing it again.
I understand that these people are of the opinion that they, and they alone, know what is right or wrong for the worlds population. That is only an incredible level of arrogance, however. NO ONE has that knowledge, whether they think it came from their holy scriptures or anywhere else. They don't have the right to make that determination.
As an American Christian, I agree with the mind your own business thing. I am first a citizen of the kingdom of God, next a American. God holds me in account to be a good American, Frenchman Mexican, or whatever. Christians miss this because they have to unbutton their shirt to see where they are going. How much money do the gullible idiots send to obvious hucksters?
As an American I will fight for your right to be yourself and pursue happiness. What if you go the wrong way in your pursuit and slide into ruin? I am here if you need a hand. No questions asked.
Christians, read your freaking bible. You are not capable of being a judge, you worm. When it comes to Christians, you are better off to take a don't ask don't tell policy. This is no joke! If you get saved and accidently trust the leadership because you think they have had a similar experience, they may have you in the men's meeting asking if you masturbated since last week. Do you recognize voyeurism when you see it?
May I add this? Whoever is without sin cast the first stone.
A little vitriolic, perhaps, but you do seem to recognize that you have no right to run others lives and that is always a good thing. It is all too rare to find that attitude today.
Thanks for the comment, WD - you seem to be what most Christians can only aspire to.
*edit* You have also added a second comment while I was answering the first. Indeed, let those without sin cast the first stone. That, too, is generally a forgotten message.
Vitrolic? Good word. I'll have to look it up later. I am here to say something to my Christian brothers and sisters. You are so focused on these guys as your enemy from the forums that you are attacking me for siding up with them. Here's something you need to know. They are not your enemy. Hello?! They are your brothers and sisters. Open up your arms and give them a hug. Am I going to have to come over there and slap you awake? Don't you remember the story of Balaam? God can speak . . . even through an ass.
So I'm an ass now? LOL Maybe so, maybe so.
It may surprise many believers to know that most non-believers feel the same way - we are all on this earth together and there is no real reason to hate or distrust each other. No real reason to be enemies. It's just a little hard when a way of life one doesn't believe in or accept is demanded by those that insist they know the only right way to live.
This is an interesting hub...BUT...since I reside in the so--called Bible Belt, I have to speak up. You are making the same mistaken generalizations about Christianity that much of the population makes about Islam. There is a profound difference between the typical modern-day Muslim and a rabid jihadist just as there is an enormous difference between a traditional, common sense Christian and a Christian zealot. Religions evolve over time--we know this. History shows us (those of us who care to listen, anyway) that the Bible has been edited to suit the whims of various heads of state over the centuries, and that many of the cruelest and most oppressive "muslim" traditions currently being being practiced in the world are actually throwbacks to old tribal customs. The modern day Christian fundamentalist is a product of the Puritan gene pool. Throw in a couple of centuries of cultural mores and a dose of charisma and you have the generalized "Christian" that offends you so. Please don't misunderstand me--I live in the world's hotbed of this type of Christianity and I struggle daily to "turn the other cheek" while this sub-type of Christian behaves one way and preaches another. But don't make the entire Christian community your whipping boy when your gripe is with the "bible beaters". Take them for what they are:vocal, judgemental and misguided. I personally belong to and old world style Christian church. I won't name the denomination because that would just be another can of worms--but the concepts are simple: follow the 10 commandments, don't judge or hold a grudge, love the sinner-hate the sin, use common sense, set an example. This isn't hard stuff--but vilifying Christians has become so fashionable that people often have no idea what a true Christian is.
While I agree with most of what you say here, I don't see the problem as a few fundamentalists. The current legal battles to institute the teaching of creationism in schools isn't being carried out by a handful of bible beaters, and neither are the enormous fights over gay marriage. The drive to change our history textbooks to show nothing but Christian forefathers was carried out the the state of Texas, not just a few loud protestors.
A few years ago I attended a city sponsored rodeo on city property where we were asked to stand for the national anthem. After standing, the audience was treated to a 15 minute sermon on the importance of training our children in Christianity, all disguised as a prayer to the Christian God. It is simply accepted that government should and does promote that particular religion.
While I am aware that not all Christians beat the drum of conformance to their way of life I think those are in the minority, not the majority. If it were not so, and the majority of Christians understood and accepted the golden rule, it would not be nearly as difficult to get such laws as gay marriage changed and we wouldn't be seeing text books with a very definite Christian viewpoint.
"Only if Christians are willing to have "foreign" or "evil" morality rules forced on them personally should they force theirs on someone else."
Well that's OK then, because I see the world forcing their ("foreign" or "evil" morality) rules onto us all the time.
Turn on a TV or open a magazine and see things which will offend any moral person.
Of course the answer is don't turn on the TV, and many believers do (or don't do) just that.
So can you get your guys to stop slaughtering the innocents and telling me it is to protect the rights of women who chose to screw whoever they want and don't expect that there can be any consequences to casual sex, after conception has been the standard way humanity has grown to 7 billion people, since time began, and after they have been given free condoms and sex education since they were prepubescent?
Can you tell your guys to stop making rules that it would be an offence to tell folk what the bible states about anything?
Can I offer a 'get out of free' card to the pastors who get arrested for refusing to marry two men or two women, to each other, or are these things not an affront to believers?
Secularists make up a small % of the world population, yet exert much more pressure on lawmakers than fundy Christians ever do.
If I go to a nudist beach by choice, of course I will go nude, I'd stick out like a sore thumb (no pun intended) if I wore clothes, and would offend the nudists who would see me as a voyeur.
You guys are far to sensitive to what the majority of folk actually want and voted for.
83% of Americans want to live by a morality that comes from the bible.
Get over it.
PS. It would be good to hear other believers viewpoints, we probably missed this hub as we were too busy bothering people!
wilderness, sorry I didn't come back sooner. Busy. You are not the ass. I am. You aren't claiming to be speaking for anyone, but yourself. I was addressing the "Church" for being in stubborn opposition to honest discussion by intelligent people. The caustic remarks I made were directed to my dear brothers and sisters who think I am an ass for engaging in discussion with others with a different mind set.
The story about Balaam . . . he was using his knowlege of God to turn a quick profit at the expense of a few thousand lives. His donkey gave him the heads up. God spoke to him from a dumb ass. That wouldn't be you.
It might be indicative that your approach is confrontational, since you are expecting "opposition". Personally, I don't mind having my mindset challenged. I might learn something in the process. The disccussion on soft and hard morality that is going on here is top drawer stuff. I dig it. You guys really know how to throw it down with a pen!
@aquasilver: You misunderstand the meaning of the word "force". No one forces you to turn on the TV, just as you say. No one denies you the right to talk of Jesus - just the right to teach fables as fact to children in public schools. No one is even thinking about forcing priests to marry gay couples, just give those couples the right to marry under a JP or other public official they help pay the salary for.
The religious, however, would deny others the right to see what they want to on their own TV. They demand that small children be taught fables as fact in public schools children are forced to attend. They deny gays the right to be married under any circumstances.
This is force; when laws are passed that force people to do or not do something they disagree with. It leaves no choice (such as changing the channel or not buying a magazine) to the individual, only to the church.
While 83% (A figure I find to be grossly inflated) may want to live by the bible, the other 17% don't. Why can't Christians follow the golden rule and simply let them make up their own mind how to live? Laws aren't being promoted to force Christians to watch objectionable TV shows, marry gays, keep children from learning about God or walk around naked; instead laws are pushed for by Christians would force everyone to do the opposite.
I know and understand that Christians don't seem to understand this point, but that does not make it any less valid. Whatever excuse is given (save the non believer from Hell, promote good morals, whatever) it is a very clear violation of the golden rule and in direct opposition to the golden rule. They are thus a fraud.
@ WD Curry: And there I thought you meant God was speaking wisdom through me to the Christians! Oh well. lol
I may get a little confrontational here, and I did expect more nasty comments. I suppose most Christians will look at the title and move on, not wanting to be offended. Offending Christians, though, is the last thing on my mind; I am far more interested in waking them up, forcing them to see the dichotomy in what they do and what they SAY they do.
Everyone wants the world to fit into their own neat little box, but it isn't going to happen. Everyone wants to be comfortable morally with everything going on around them, but it isn't going to happen. We humans are too diverse a group, with far too many opinions and ethical structures to ever see that happen.
Far better that people finally realize and accept that not everyone is going to agree with them and let others live life as they see fit. The only real moral rule we need for everyone is the golden rule; with that one there will be very little squabbling. If someone wants to sacrifice chickens in their back yard I don't care - just don't splatter my house with the blood and don't complain when I dance naked in my own back yard with my coven of witches. Or whatever it is that I do that offends you without hurting you.
What is it about humanity that we must control others when their actions have little to no affect on our own life? In the forums I listen and hear this desire for control all the time (and yes, sometimes, push back a little hard) but I confess that I never understand it.
I understand that no one wants to be dictated to, especially if it is a matter of having someone else's moral code thrust on you as law. Other Christians in colonial America did not want the Puritans in Mass. setting standards for them. That's why they pushed for freedom of religion, no state ordained religion. At the same time, where do you draw the line for acceptable behavior? There is a tension between rights and freedom. I believe you are trying to help find a reasonable balance and the discussion is not a threat to anyone's faith. Some questions are hard to answer, but they shouldn't be avoided.
You have hit the nail exactly on the head with the reason for the first amendment; it was to protect the religious freedom of the various colonies and settlements, not to promote Christianity as many seem to believe. The supreme court decisions relating to prohibiting prayer and other religious teachings in our schools is in line with that reason, not in opposition.
There is always tension between rights and freedom; the line is a very broad, fuzzy one and cannot be well defined. In general I believe that the "soft" morals as I use the term here is that line. Soft morals are rights not to be abridged, hard morals are for the protection of others.
Even this, though, is a gray area. Take public nudity as something we can all recognize and sympathize with. Clothing requirements change over the years (one has only to look at bathing suits to see this) and what is acceptable to one is completely evil and obscene to another. I do not accept the desire to "not have to see" naked bodies as an excuse to require clothing; that right is minute compared to requiring someone to purchase and adorn their bodies with cloth they don't want. At the same time, what about nudity in a public restaurant? Health issues can and perhaps should be raised - it would seem reasonable to at least require lower body clothing in that case.
I've seen that concept of "not want to see" or "pushing an agenda" applied to gays as they walk a public street hand in hand. Nonsense! If you don't want to see it then look the other way - it isn't being "pushed" on you. Your right to blindness does not even come close to the right of a couple in love to hold hands or kiss in public.
It is mostly a question of tolerance and the golden rule. If you want to hold hands with your mate or loved one then others have the same right and it isn't up to you to limit that right to only those couples that you find "righteous". Tolerance for other views is required and in the case of these "soft" morals that mostly comes down once more to the golden rule.
We all struggle with some of these things. Public sex I find abhorrent, but why? Because I don't want to see it? That's not much of a reason from what I've been saying, but it's really about all I've got. One can mention small children exposed to such a thing, but is it really a valid reason to prohibit it? One can discuss health hazards again, but is it really? I believe we would find 99% of the population against allowing such a thing - is that enough to prohibit it? Or I could point out that if it wasn't illicit sex those that do enjoy it would probably lose their taste for it - we're doing them a favor by keeping it unacceptable. We have to be careful here in that it is all too easy to concoct reasons that are nothing more than rationalizations to promote our own morality.
It is often a dilemma, especially when it hits home in something you don't like to have others do but are honest enough to realize that you really don't have a reason for it.
Public nudity in America...may start people deciding to eat less! especially if they allowed nudity in restaurants.
Pull your pants up. Your brains are showing!
@Aquasilver: You just provided the reasoning to allow nudity; it's for peoples own good. Let it happen! I'll wear blinders for the sake of everyone else, thank you.
@WD Curry: You can't. Aquasilver has just give cause to require that no one wear pants; we'll just have to let them show!
But we digress. I remember when it was common practice to pray in school. I never remember anyone complaining or forcing anyone to pray a specific prayer. I moved a lot. In Texas, in the early sixties, they recited Psalm 23,"The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want . . . " It confused me. Shouldn't it be "shall want"? Why wouldn't I want my shepherd? I was in first grade.
Then in St. Petersburg, Florida, in Jr. High, they called it a time of prayer or meditation. The Beatles were into Transcendental Meditation at the time, but I don't know if there is a correlation. There was a boy from Lebanon in our class. His dad was a high ranking Air Force officer here on exchange. At prayer time, he would face Mecca and pray. He had no qualms about it or explaining what he was doing. We read a Book. "Hi Jolly" about an Islamic Camel trainer, Hadge Ali who escaped a wicked Arabian prince with his stolen camel. Hadge Ali came to the American west to work with the experimental Army Camel Corps. He had many adventures and we learned about our friend's beliefs. It was all good.
Who is threatened by prayer? How does that effect anyone who chooses not to pray? Meditate, then . . . or be quiet for a minute and show respect for your neighbor.
Your experience in the first grade gives a partial answer to your question about who is threatened. What shepherd would you be wanting - the one that is only a myth but that is being promoted as actual and real? A young child will take that obvious (to an adult) lie as truth. A parent must now explain that their teacher is an idiot and teaching lies and beliefs as reality when the child is already having a hard time always understanding the difference.
In addition, young children are extremely sensitive to peer pressure. I'm surprised that your friend in Jr. High school was willing to ignore that oh-so-important part of being young and continue with his own beliefs.
I have to ask why your class as a whole didn't face Mecca and pray as Muslims every other day? And every third day produce some arcane rite - sacrifice a chicken maybe - as the right way to appease the Gods? Somehow I doubt that the Christian majority would ever accept their child being taught that God wanted any method of praying but their own. They would not accept it as "truth", but in the end all methods are equal.
Even for everyone to suddenly become quiet and show respect is unreasonable when it goes beyond a few seconds in a school. Shall we stop traffic and require silence and stillness 5 times a day as Muslims pray in public? How far should we go here? A little common courtesy is one thing, but a requirement to stop whatever we doing and wait while someone, anyone at all, prays to their personal Gods is quite another.
Best that we never start. Leave it at a private moment. Do not require our children to experience (and be subtly taught to young minds) someone else's belief system. Christians don't want it done to their children; don't require that I submit my children to that nonsense.
It's fine to teach older children the basics of alternative religious beliefs. Just don't choose only one and promote it as the only one, the right one, to minds far too young to understand that it might not be true.
"I doubt that the Christian majority would ever accept their child being taught that God wanted any method of praying but their own. They would not accept it as "truth", but in the end all methods are equal."
Classic pantheism, "all methods are equal."
How on earth do you, as a rational secularist qualify that?
At best it is an assumption, at worse a grave error of judgement.
The reason the 'majority' get their way is because they are the majority.
Respect for other religions is written into your constitution and is demonstrably shown in your society, so that is a dead dog argument.
"Shall we stop traffic and require silence and stillness 5 times a day as Muslims pray in public? How far should we go here? A little common courtesy is one thing, but a requirement to stop whatever we doing and wait while someone, anyone at all, prays to their personal Gods is quite another."
I tell you what, on the day that Christianity is allowed to be preached openly in Islamic countries, I will accept your concept of fair play.
I live in a country where I would be arrested and jailed for explaining who Christ is to a Muslim, even if they asked me to do so, and we do not get any of the 'freedoms' you demand (as a minority) in America.
Off track me amigo...
John
Did you miss the point or ignore it? Here's the deal, pal. You want to think it is a myth. That's fine. I know better. Either way, you are obsessing about other peoples beliefs in a free country. That's an idiotic waste of time . . . unless you are up next for a human sacrifice. Get a life, I'll see you around.
@ aquasilver: No, not all methods are equal, in the sense you use it. All unproven beliefs are equal however (such as the method used to pray to God), and this is where the problem starts. Most Christian believers (and you indicate that Muslim believers are the same) seem to believe that their belief is the only right one and they therefore have the right and obligation to impose that belief system on others - it is not so.
Yes, the majority usually gets their way - it is the concept that "might makes right". Hopefully we have progressed a little beyond that and recognize that minorities also have the same rights.
Yes, our constitution protects the minorities, but there are always those that believe that "might makes right" and will do what they can to circumvent or ignore that constitution. The rights given must be protected with constant vigilance; that is what this hub is about.
When the excuse for abusing the rights of any minority is that somewhere in the world someone else is doing the same thing we have a major problem. That someone else is behaving immorally should not and cannot be an excuse to do it yourself.
@ WD Curry: Not sure who you are replying to, but to some degree my answer (if replying to me) is the same as to Quicksilver. The belief system you hold is no more right than the belief system of anyone else. Either one can be the "right" one (we may never know) and to put yours on the pedestal of truth does not mean it belongs there.
Others will view your beliefs as myth only and you can produce no evidence that it is not, any more that they can produce evidence that their beliefs are the "right" ones.
No, I do not obsess about others beliefs; each is entitled to their own. They are NOT entitled, however, to forcibly extend those beliefs to the actions of anyone else, particularly when they violate their own morality structure in doing so.
The continuation of our society requires that "hard" morals be extended to everyone but the same is not true of "soft" morals. Indeed, with the mix of people and beliefs in our society it is imperative that the soft morals of any particular group NOT be required of everyone.
Bottom line is that no, WD, I don't need or want you to think your beliefs are myth. I do want you to realize that OTHERS think that your beliefs are myth and that they have as much right to that belief as you do to yours. They should not be subjected to the requirements of your belief system any more than you should be subjected to the requirements of theirs.
If I still miss the point, I apologize; it is not my intent to ignore.
You missed or ignored the point again. Like we say to tourists we are tired of in Florida . . . C-ya.
Have you ever stopped to think that what is a soft moral for you, may represent a hard moral for someone else?
Why (assuming that the majority hold something to be a hard moral), should you and the minority who view it as a soft moral, have the right to demand that we downgrade it from hard to soft?
All that most people call 'rights' are actually 'privileges' we grant each other.
@ WD Curry: I'm sorry - I must not be up to par this morning. After two tries I still don't seem to have caught what your point is. I do apologize and hope that the next time we meet (forums maybe?) I'll do better.
@ aquasilver: While there might be (and probably are) such cases, I believe they would be rare. I defined "hard morals" to be those that directly affect another person, causing perceptible damage to them. It might be financial, it might be physical or it might be something else, but what it is NOT is something as simple as disgust or offensiveness.
An example: interracial marriage was very much against the morals and teachings of most Christian sects for a long time. It was disgusting, it was in violation of God's law, and it encouraged other people to do the same thing. It also prevented two people in love from getting married. The first three are a result of soft morals - there is no real damage to the person seeing an interracial marriage. They might be disgusted, their beliefs might be challenged and it might make others think twice about not marrying their loved one, but until the Christian can show that they have been sent to Hell as a direct result of two races marrying each other there has been no damage done to them. The people being refused the opportunity for love, however, HAVE suffered real damage; one of the things we all look for was refused them. A soft moral to the Christian (and one that should thus be ignored in reference to other people) and a hard moral to the couple that could not marry (one worth fighting for).
You are absolutely correct in that 'rights' are actually privileges granted (or denied) by other people. The harm comes into play when one group grants privileges they want to have to everyone while denying privileges that they don't want anyway. When those denied privileges have no material effect on the denier they have no more right to deny them than someone else has to deny privileges based solely on what THEY want everyone to do. To use the power inherent in a majority to do so anyway is a direct violation of the strongest and most universally held moral of all: the golden rule.
Can't say I disagree with this reply, good case made and accepted!
Pleasant to find someone who can reply and work his case until logic prevails.
I could go into all manner of real reasons that mixed marriages, for love or not, can be a weight for society to carry, I see many mixed marriages here in SE Asia, and the problems seem to soon outweigh the love, but that is another issue, related to reality not logic.
I am originally from England, and married to a Danish woman, and considering that my ancestry is half Danish and half Irish, we should find it easy to get along, but despite the Danes occupying and ruling Eng's Land for 600 years, we still have cultural and tribal differences that can cause misunderstanding.
The further one wanders from your tribal group (what they call ethnicity I think) the more liable you are to have confusions of behaviour, or that has been my observation over the years.
But we have dealt with your main thrust and I don't think there is any reason to push the donkey uphill any longer!
Thank you. Let me respond, however, to a couple of very good points you raise that are not really a part of this hub, but can be considered parallel in a manner of speaking.
Interracial marriages did indeed cause trouble for society and often did not last because of societies reaction. This is also part of your other mention of wandering from your tribal group - the participants in such marriages were wandering from the common mores and practices of their group. Problems were inevitable.
Those problems, however, stemmed 100% from a majority that, sticking their noses where they didn't belong and into matters that did not affect them, demanded that the marriages not be allowed to proceed. Human nature being what it is, the marriages took place anyway and it will always be that way. If we cannot see any harm being done, people want to do what they want - not what someone else demands of them.
America is a land of 1000 tribes, all trying to live together in one harmonious society. The world continues to approach that as well as barriers of distance and communication fall. It behooves us all to accept that and keep our noses in our own homes (where we ARE king). We need to understand that these soft morals that we put stock in are not universal, are not needed for societies benefit and are therefore no better than anyone elses.
Your comment on different "tribes" living in close proximity (or more precisely leaving ones tribe to travel into another) brings this all together in a way that I hadn't considered but is very valid in today's world.
This discussion has been fruitful for both of us I think, but certainly for me. Thank you.
wilderness, we have had a good debate, and I guess it may continue some as we expose new thinking to each other!
"Those problems, however, stemmed 100% from a majority that, sticking their noses where they didn't belong and into matters that did not affect them, demanded that the marriages not be allowed to proceed."
I would question the 100%.
God determines that marriage is promise + consummation = married.
Short formula, long results and effects.
The act of 'marrying' someone is a sacred act,to God at least, and reflects the relationship He has with His people, a relationship where He took a vow and will NEVER divorce his 'bride' (loosely spoken the 'church' but broadly spoken, humanity as a whole).
We are always the ones to divorce ourselves from God.
So any interracial 'marriage' will take place irrespective of what the law makers say, once any two people (but in Gods eye, He determines a male and a female) make a promise to stay together and 'consummate' that promise; with an act of love that can from the very first coupling create life,(Hence why He excludes same sex 'marriages' from the equation)they are married for life (in Gods eyes)
How many times has the average 21st century man or woman been 'married' in Gods eyes? and divorced the next day?
As each marriage leaves a spiritual bond between the partners, it can get pretty confusing in folks understanding of how they relate to present and former 'partners' and as they add spiritual bonds, how they relate to God.
In bible this is called 'known' as in he 'knew' her, a polite way of saying that they were a married couple having sexual relations.
There is another bible word for fornication, being 'lay' as in "he laid with her" which proposes that the sex had no promise attached to it, and therefore would have been with a prostitute or whore who expected either nothing or something OTHER than a lasting promise for the fornication.
Prostitute or whore are not meant as derogatory terms (by me at least) but merely as definitions: 'professional or amateur'.
So (in bible speak) any couple getting 'married' are married, the legal aspect is to ensure taxation, alimony and child support are covered in a 'modern' marriage.
We believers 'marry' (make a profession of a bond between us) for life, though there are many professing believers who don't understand that and churches that wink at divorce.
So your hypothetical mixed race couple will almost definitely be married in Gods eye, and let no man rip them asunder.
In this respect ignorant or bigoted religious leaders were in error, but then few probably fully understand the way God views 'marriage' so it is understandable, and as most leaders anywhere are seeking to provide a quiet life for those they lead, (and therefore themselves) the temptation is always to legislate in favour of the 'status quo' and against any behaviour seen as 'errant' which may cause problems. Not realising that what they are doing is pushing the problem in front of them for later leaders to deal with.
"America is a land of 1000 tribes, all trying to live together in one harmonious society. The world continues to approach that as well as barriers of distance and communication fall."
God knew about this also, and I agree that travel broadens the mind, unfortunately only 28% of Americans travel abroad or own a passport, and as many of them currently are only visiting a country to subdue it's populace, they often do not experience the mind broadening effects that submersion in an alien society can bring.
I live in SE Asia, where we truly are multicultural in EVERY respect, my neighbours are Muslim, Hindi's, Christians, Taoists and just about every shade or religion imaginable, we have our different tongues and so the Malays speak a form of English as a second language, which enables them to understand me provided I speak in very simple terms, but their Bahasa Malay is incomprehensible to me beyond a few words of common communication and those which stem from English anyway as they had no word to match what they describe.
My Chinese neighbours will speak Mandarin, Hokkien, Malay and English with varying degrees of fluency, but in all except English superior to me.
My Indian neighbours will also speak any one of three Indian dialects, but mainly speak Tamal, Malay and 'Indian' English.
Any of them except the Malays may be of any religion. The Malays are 'born' into Islam and have no choice in the matter.
You will remember the events recorded about 'Babel' and it's tower to the sky, built by people who were from different tribes, yet understood each other, and how God decided this was NOT good, so confused the language to frustrate their efforts to bring about what would have been the 'global community' way back then. Irrespective of it's accuracy of events then, the world does speak different languages although the various forms of English spoken have give us a 'lingua franca' to work with (ironic I need use a French word to describe English as the common language).
As we conglomerate together globally, we begin to understand why God desire to keep us in tribal and social separation.
If I sneeze a new virus here in Penang, you can catch it from somebody wherever you are in the world one day later.
Pornography and worse can be sent worldwide from safe havens in countries where the local law in your country have no access or rights to close it down.
Some greedy bastards in Wall Street can make a financial killing selling dirty bonds and have their stolen gains transferred to an offshore tax haven, washed through five banking circuits and safe from seizure in about twenty minutes.
Globalism brings it's problems, and God knew that all along and has warned us that the segments of life He allotted to us were segregated from each other for a good reason.
I am appalled that arranged marriages still exist, and that Indian women will still try to throw themselves alive onto their dead husband funeral pyre in order to die, as being a widow is worse than death to them.
But they are local and tribal customs and are none of my concern until they import them into my tribal space.
America today is a mongrel nation, and as you say 1,000 tribes trying to coexist, but it was founded by a small group, who were of European extraction and therefore, as they fled from religious persecution in their own lands, religiously tolerant and accommodating to strangers who had been similarly persecuted.
Their arrival signalled the native 'first Americans' destruction in the most part, which can never be reinstituted.
The mass legally sanctioned immigration is long gone, and with every tribe and tongue present, the world does have problems, but God never wanted it that way, it was the enemies work that caused these problems, and in truth we are required to treat each other by that golden rule.
But my Chinese, Malay and Indian neighbours will NEVER accept me, or my children had I married one of their tribes, as a 'true' member of their tribe, for my DNA will not mingle with their for many generations, only being diminished if my progeny consistently marry into their tribal group.
My children were born in Spain, my son has always been mistaken for a Spaniard, and considers himself Spanish, but he is not ever going to be Spanish to a tribal Spaniard, nor will he be able to accept all of the tribal Spanish ways.
So we are a global family, my wife Danish, my children Spanish, myself English (note: not British, that is a passport definition)and we live in Malaysia and my son in America.
We live in a confused world, we will not change that confusion, for it is not meant to be changed, and our very blood will not allow the change that the NWO desire to implement.
The temptation is to turn this into a hub as it's so long, but I will post it and hope that those who should see this find it.
Your thoughtful comment gives me much to think about, and in several areas, but I will try to pull my thoughts together and respond with something meaningful.
First, you have to know by now that I will call you on the use of religion, but (surprise!) not to debate the conclusions and beliefs you are presenting. Only in that those thoughts and conclusions are opinion and not necessarily factual. You are presenting them as fact, but they are not. I may even agree with some of your conclusions (and I do) but that doesn't make them factual either.
"God determines that marriage is promise + consummation = married."
True or not, it is immaterial. Every "tribe" on earth (that I am aware of) considers marriage a commitment between two people; God may or may not enter into any consideration of its meaning. As such, we can only accept the public concept, not the religious one, as the ruling concept and even that changes everywhere we look. I've been married to my wife now for 35 years - I hate the notion that marriage is only for convenience, taxes, etc. but I have to live with the knowledge that for many that is all it is. I do not and shall not make any effort to require that marriage be forever.
Likewise, you have to be fully aware that I will disagree with the notion that God separated the human race into their various tribes; I have my own notion as to what happened. That doesn't matter either, but the requirement that the tribes remain separate DOES matter. You believe God wants tribes separated, I believe it is inevitable and necessary that they become one to a large degree and here I WILL argue my point.
The claim, as we both know, at one time prevalent in the US was that God did not want blacks and whites to intermarry. While you think it was misguided priests and I think it was priests forcing their bigoted views on the population that doesn't matter either. What DOES matter is that many people suffered greatly from that declaration from God and that as the practice gradually became more acceptable and God changed his mind (so to speak) that suffering has diminished greatly. THIS is what matters to me, and I don't really think you would argue that point - you don't seem to believe that interracial marriages should be banned because God forbids it. As that silly, tribe and religious based, rule eased so did suffering.
In general that is what I see happening all around us. As tribes ease up on imposing their rules on outsiders living amongst them suffering eases and happiness gains ground.
Your neighbors may not truly accept you as one of them, or your children or even their children, but if you stay there long enough and more outsiders join you it will happen. When it does, everyone will be the better for it - why fight it? Why NOT change that now? Why NOT accept others for what they are and believe? As you say, the world is confused - should we not make an effort to eliminate that confusion and pain?
Your claim seems to be that we should not - God wants it that way and that way it should remain. I simply cannot and will not accept that as a reason to continually control everyone that doesn't agree with my beliefs. To cause people guilty only of believing differently than I do so much pain and sorrow that is so easily dispelled is unacceptable.
In this single instance I am willing to unequivocally state that you are wrong, your God is wrong and anyone using religion or any other cobbled together reason for unnecessary control of others is wrong. The results of living together peaceably and tolerantly (the few places that might happen) bear me out.
Your own confusion about interracial marriage (God separated races and tribes and does not want that changed but will condone marriage between tribes and races) tells me you are having trouble with this. You very well know what is right and wrong here, but it doesn't agree with what you believe God wants, thus the confusion. Or am I once more (I'm so tired of doing this!) misunderstanding or reading something into your comment that you didn't intend?
The Dubious Disciple 9 months ago
I am thinking hard about whether public nudity is a "soft moral." I propose a compromise: women may go nude as they wish. But men's bodies are lumpy and malformed and shouldn't be seen in the light of day.